In Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, Case No. 13-6312 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 8, 2016), Plaintiff sued Defendant for allegedly impermissibly downloading its movies using the software BitTorrent. Plaintiff claimed to have identified Defendant using his IP address. Defendant denied the allegations and disputed Plaintiff’s method of proof. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
During summary judgment motion practice, Defendant alleged that his computer hardware contained no evidence of Plaintiff’s movies. Plaintiff’s computer forensics expert examined Defendant’s computer and found evidence that two other devices had been previously connected to Defendant’s computer, but noted that Defendant did not produce these devices for inspection. Defendant countered that the devices were connected to his computer in 2012, before Defendant had created any of the movies at issue.
Regarding Plaintiff’s evidence related to Defendant’s IP address, Defendant claimed that during the time in question, he had many guests at his house, and any number of people could have downloaded from his IP. He also found other devices connected to his network when he looked at his router, showing Mac addresses and a screenshot as proof. The court found this was sufficient and relevant evidence, despite Plaintiff’s expert’s disagreement with the veracity of the evidence.
After considering both motions, the court granted Defendant’s summary motion in its entirety, concluding that Plaintiff had not presented sufficient proof regarding its allegations.